Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:43 PM, TheClimateChanger said:

We can also see any temperature records that show the 1980s and 1990s as cold are gaslighting us. The 1980s were very warm, as noted in the article. The 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record.

And so much misinformation. They want us to "trust the experts" and the so-called experts were used to gaslight us with non sequiturs. "The question you have to ask yourself is, if this was the third warmest year in Pittsburgh, what happened to cause the other two" and "[t]he relationship between global warming and temperatures at any particular location is not very strong." Absolute rubbish from someone who should have known better even in that era.

The funny thing is there are people here who think it's a government conspiracy or hoax, as if the U.S. government didn't spend decades gaslighting us and ignoring reality. 

Here is an example. Paul Callahan [@ChescoWx] questions Roger Coppock as to why he begins his analysis in 1980? Obviously, this is complete and utter nonsense. That's when the first satellites carrying MSUs were launched into orbit. But the implication is this is a cherrypicked start date and that the warming trend is amplified because it starts at a cool period. GASLIGHT CITY!

The 1980s were a very warm decade overall [read the article I posted above, and THINK!!!!] and the 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record - and by a fair margin. Many so-called experts insisted the 1990s and early 2000s were the peak or zenith of a long-term, but cyclical, warming trend, and that temperatures thereafter would fall. In fact, temperatures have risen at a greater rate than ever before since 2010. Not only have these so-called experts been wrong, they have been DEAD WRONG. 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

48 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Here is an example. Paul Callahan [@ChescoWx] questions Roger Coppock as to why he begins his analysis in 1980? Obviously, this is complete and utter nonsense. That's when the first satellites carrying MSUs were launched into orbit. But the implication is this is a cherrypicked start date and that the warming trend is amplified because it starts at a cool period. GASLIGHT CITY!

The 1980s were a very warm decade overall [read the article I posted above, and THINK!!!!] and the 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record - and by a fair margin. Many so-called experts insisted the 1990s and early 2000s were the peak or zenith of a long-term, but cyclical, warming trend, and that temperatures thereafter would fall. In fact, temperatures have risen at a greater rate than ever before since 2010. Not only have these so-called experts been wrong, they have been DEAD WRONG. 

 

I mean this level of gaslighting is nothing short of incredible. Do these people realize some of us were living in this era? It was almost uncontested on both sides of the so-called debate that the 1980s and 1990s were unusually warm. The debate was largely centered on the extent to which that was attributable to the greenhouse effect, or to natural and cyclical changes.

A secondary corollary was the degree to which the warming was attributable to other, non-large scale changes, such us urbanization and the expansion of urban heat islands. Related to that, there was some "debate" as to whether - and by how much - temperatures in that era exceeded temperatures in another similar warm period from the 1930s to the early/mid 1950s. But even that facet of the so-called debate took for granted the fact that the 1980s and 1990s was a warm period, simply questioning the extent to which it differed [or exceeded] earlier warm periods. The reality is these satellite records begin right at the beginning of a very warm period, and this was understood and accepted by all (or nearly all) contemporaneous experts regardless of which side of the so-called "debate" they were on. This idea that the 1980s and 1990s were a cold period is a modern invention.

Related to this people also always say what was the climate like before 1880 or 1850, etc.? Have these imbeciles never heard of the Little Ice Age? Pretty much everyone accepts the existence of the LIA, regardless of their position on AGW. The instrumental temperature largely begins at a time when temperatures had warmed some - or at least were beginning to warm - coming out of the LIA. It's very likely there's nothing close to this back to 1300 [start of the LIA].

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

I mean this level of gaslighting is nothing short of incredible. Do these people realize some of us were living in this era? It was almost uncontested on both sides of the so-called debate that the 1980s and 1990s were unusually warm. The debate was largely centered on the extent to which that was attributable to the greenhouse effect, or to natural and cyclical changes.

A secondary corollary was the degree to which the warming was attributable to other, non-large scale changes, such us urbanization and the expansion of urban heat islands. Related to that, there was some "debate" as to whether - and by how much - temperatures in that era exceeded temperatures in another similar warm period from the 1930s to the early/mid 1950s. But even that facet of the so-called debate took for granted the fact that the 1980s and 1990s was a warm period, simply questioning the extent to which it differed [or exceeded] earlier warm periods. The reality is these satellite records begin right at the beginning of a very warm period, and this was understood and accepted by all (or nearly all) contemporaneous experts regardless of which side of the so-called "debate" they were on. This idea that the 1980s and 1990s were a cold period is a modern invention.

Related to this people also always say what was the climate like before 1880 or 1850, etc.? Have these imbeciles never heard of the Little Ice Age? Pretty much everyone accepts the existence of the LIA, regardless of their position on AGW. The instrumental temperature largely begins at a time when temperatures had warmed some - or at least were beginning to warm - coming out of the LIA. It's very likely there's nothing close to this back to 1300 [start of the LIA].

The recent heat has created problems for some. Now, some are even trying to "disappear" what happened in Phoenix.

The above post is misguided:

1. The climate record used for analyzing U.S. and global temperature records utilizes statistical homogenization that eliminates distortions created from Time of Observation Bias, the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect, etc. Yet, some who deny climate change e.g., Tony Heller, insist that only raw data should be used.

2. Because homogenization removes the distortions, removing urban sites would have, at best, a negligible impact on the climate record.

3. Warming has been occurring in rural and urban areas alike. Phoenix was not unique in experiencing the unprecedented autumn heatwave that stretched from through the last week of September and through the first week of October. Oceans and the Arctic have also been warming. UHI does not explain global temperature trends.

P.S. Notice that despite mention of 'back of envelope calculation," no calculations were provided. The statement is nothing more than a reaction to the high-profile heat event while ignoring that distortions are removed from the climate record.

[ChescoWx]

18 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Here is an example. Paul Callahan [@ChescoWx] questions Roger Coppock as to why he begins his analysis in 1980? Obviously, this is complete and utter nonsense. That's when the first satellites carrying MSUs were launched into orbit. But the implication is this is a cherrypicked start date and that the warming trend is amplified because it starts at a cool period. GASLIGHT CITY!

The 1980s were a very warm decade overall [read the article I posted above, and THINK!!!!] and the 1990s were considered to be the warmest decade on record - and by a fair margin. Many so-called experts insisted the 1990s and early 2000s were the peak or zenith of a long-term, but cyclical, warming trend, and that temperatures thereafter would fall. In fact, temperatures have risen at a greater rate than ever before since 2010. Not only have these so-called experts been wrong, they have been DEAD WRONG. 

 

 

The point of course that data starts at the end of the coldest decade on record....there was nowhere to go but up. This cherry picking simply picks up on the current cyclical warming cycle. Rinse and repeat!

[chubbs]

6 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

The point of course that data starts at the end of the coldest decade on record....there was nowhere to go but up. This cherry picking simply picks up on the current cyclical warming cycle. Rinse and repeat!

I didn't see any evidence that the 1980s were the coolest data locally in Chester County. Quite the contrary, the raw data clearly showed 3-4F warming vs 100+ years ago.  You need to ignore stations moves and other monitoring network changes to conclude that there is no warming in Chester County.  A clear case of cherry picking on your part.

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

I didn't see any evidence that the 1980s were the coolest data locally in Chester County. Quite the contrary, the raw data clearly showed 3-4F warming vs 100+ years ago.  You need to ignore stations moves and other monitoring network changes to conclude that there is no warming in Chester County.  A clear case of cherry picking on your part.

The 1980's were the 3rd coldest decade in the period of record.....so nowhere to go but up - clear cherry picking on Roger's part!

The great news is we can always go to real actual data (below) that highlights there has of course in fact NOT been 3 degrees of warming in the last 100 years here in Chester County PA - well unless we make the "required chilling adjustments" to the older "faulty" data to better support the warming story!!

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The point of course that data starts at the end of the coldest decade on record....there was nowhere to go but up. This cherry picking simply picks up on the current cyclical warming cycle. Rinse and repeat!

From reading Roger's response and the initial post (Maue's post) to which he responded, I don't believe Roger was seeking to cherrypick. He was suggesting that the ongoing warming can be seen in many lines of evidence, including lower troposphere satellite observations. The satellite record he highlighted only goes back to 1980.

On a separate note, Maue knows that NOAA homogenization of data removes the urban heat island effect, as he has dealt with the data in creating weather and climate maps. The trends in the adjusted data closely resemble those found in the USCRN network. Thus, there is no basis to his "calculation" that removing such cities as Phoenix from the climate record would have a material impact on the observed warming in the climate record. His comment is puzzling given his knowledge of the datasets and work with them.

[ChescoWx]

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

From reading Roger's response and the initial post (Maue's post) to which he responded, I don't believe Roger was seeking to cherrypick. He was suggesting that the ongoing warming can be seen in many lines of evidence, including lower troposphere satellite observations. The satellite record he highlighted only goes back to 1980.

On a separate note, Maue knows that NOAA homogenization of data removes the urban heat island effect, as he has dealt with the data in creating weather and climate maps. The trends in the adjusted data closely resemble those found in the USCRN network. Thus, there is no basis to his "calculation" that removing such cities as Phoenix from the climate record would have a material impact on the observed warming in the climate record. His comment is puzzling given his knowledge of the datasets and work with them.

Don - can you show me by year or decade how many degrees NOAA has reduced the average temperature to remove the UHI effect at the PHL Airport?

[bdgwx]

I'll remind readers here that ideally we wouldn't remove the UHI effect because it is a real effect. Cities and the land area that they represent really are warmer and really do contribute, albeit only a small amount, to the increase in the global average temperature (GAT). Any removal of the UHI necessarily makes the trend in the GAT lower than it actually is. 

Ryan Maue's tweet is absurd. Urban areas account for about 3% (at most) of the land area of Earth. Even if you ignore the actual temperature in this 3% portion and instead infill those areas using Kriging or some other local regression technique It's only going to reduce the GAT by a few hundredths of degree C and be biased too low. And keep in mind that the UHI is an anthropogenic source of global warming anyway. If he wants to remove anthropogenic factors from the GAT to make the GAT appear lower than it actually is then he should go all in and remove all anthropogenic factors and not just the UHI effect. 

[chubbs]

7 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The 1980's were the 3rd coldest decade in the period of record.....so nowhere to go but up - clear cherry picking on Roger's part!

The great news is we can always go to real actual data (below) that highlights there has of course in fact NOT been 3 degrees of warming in the last 100 years here in Chester County PA - well unless we make the "required chilling adjustments" to the older "faulty" data to better support the warming story!!

The 1980s drop to 7'th coldest at Coatesville and 10'th coldest at West Chester after the moves from town to more rural locations are are accounted for. (Coatesville in 1946/47 and West Chester 1970).

Below is a graphic that summarizes the network you are using. A capital X denotes a full decade. Small x partial. Town or Human disturbance is judged by looking at a photo of the station or address. The stations are ordered from low elevation to high. Elevation increases as you move north and west in the county, generally to cooler locations. The station changes are massive with time and work in the direction of chilling the network. Completely unsuitable for detecting climate trends. Downright misleading.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Don - can you show me by year or decade how many degrees NOAA has reduced the average temperature to remove the UHI effect at the PHL Airport?

I don’t have access to the algorithms where the discontinuities are removed for purposes of the national climate record.

[ChescoWx]

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From reading Roger's response and the initial post (Maue's post) to which he responded, I don't believe Roger was seeking to cherrypick. He was suggesting that the ongoing warming can be seen in many lines of evidence, including lower troposphere satellite observations. The satellite record he highlighted only goes back to 1980.

On a separate note, Maue knows that NOAA homogenization of data removes the urban heat island effect, as he has dealt with the data in creating weather and climate maps. The trends in the adjusted data closely resemble those found in the USCRN network. Thus, there is no basis to his "calculation" that removing such cities as Phoenix from the climate record would have a material impact on the observed warming in the climate record. His comment is puzzling given his knowledge of the datasets and work with them.

 

12 minutes ago, chubbs said:

The 1980s drop to 7'th coldest at Coatesville and 10'th coldest at West Chester after the moves from town to more rural locations are are accounted for. (Coatesville in 1946/47 and West Chester 1970).

Below is a graphic that summarizes the network you are using. A capital X denotes a full decade. Small x partial. Town or Human disturbance is judged by looking at a photo of the station or address. The stations are ordered from low elevation to high. Elevation increases as you move north and west in the county, generally to cooler locations. The station changes are massive with time and work in the direction of chilling the network. Completely unsuitable for detecting climate trends. Downright misleading.

 

 

Sorry Charlie some of those higher locales are in the South.....not North. Facts over post hoc adjustments FTW